51 When Jesus died, the curtain in the Temple was torn into two
pieces. The tear started at the top and tore all the way to the
bottom. Also, the earth shook and rocks were broken. 52 The graves
opened, and many of God’s people who had died were raised from death.
53 They came out of the graves. And after Jesus was raised from death,
they went into the holy city, and many people saw them. -Matthew 27:51

Aside from Jesus healing people, this appears to me as the biggest supernatural event in the Gospel: Other peoplerising from the dead, out of graves!

The LDS church believe fully in this event. If you're interested, visit scriptures.byu.edu and navigate on the left to Matt 27:52-53 for a list of talks by church leaders that mention the subject.
–
user23Aug 23 '12 at 17:57

9 Answers
9

Yes, you are right, this would have been a pretty significant event. The fact this story is only mentioned in one of the gospels (and incredibly briefly at that) is interesting. More interesting, perhaps, is that we have a range of non-Biblical records from a similar time, and this event is not recorded. Frankly, it would have been. Corpses stumbling through the streets is not something that people idly dismiss. Even for the people not all that interested in "yet another prophet", but just wanted to eke out their existence - this would have been a huge event.

I know this won't be popular, but it seems the most likely explanation is that this was an embellishment, perhaps intended to resonate with a particular audience, but equally perhaps just accidentally added during the oral tradition (IIRC the gospel of Matthew is usually dated between 40 and 70 years after these events).

The problem, though, is that it is not kosher to suggest/acknowledge this view, because it raises the ugly question: "if that bit is an embellishment, what else is?", and throws the "divine inspired" into chaos. But: I know plenty of Christians who raise an eyebrow at this part of Matthew, particularly because it is so throwaway. Your confusion over this event (I'm looking in particular at your comments on Randy's answer) are not unique to yourself.

@Greg for the record, this probably shouldn't be the accepted answer, as arguably it officially cannot be a church position - even if many Christians might be tempted to agree with it
–
Marc Gravell♦Aug 23 '12 at 17:09

2

doesn't mean I believe any less in Jesus. When I answer to God I will tell Him I did question this part...and he may say yeah, that's Matthew but he's cool with me.
–
Greg McNultyAug 23 '12 at 17:15

4

I think its incorrect to assume that those who rose resembled corpses. The whole idea of the resurrection implies that they at least looked normal, or perhaps even glorified.
–
user23Aug 23 '12 at 17:52

2

@JustinY it would be speculation either way, but: in either event - pretty note-worthy by anyone's standards.
–
Marc Gravell♦Aug 23 '12 at 18:06

2

@MarcGravell Aren't you arguing from ignorance here? We're talking about the 1st century. Sometimes events that transpired in one village couldn't get to the next. The only information preserved was that which made its way into biographies of emperors or writings of philosophers, and that wasn't much. In fact the contemporary documents acknowledge none of the events recorded in the Gospels except the existence of a man named Jesus.
–
Monika MichaelAug 24 '12 at 13:28

There is no doubt this truly happened, but in many of the events in the gospels, they are the only records of the history which is why they written. I think when one gospel has something and the others do not, we can assume this is not to be central in our view of the ministry of Christ, but that it is important from the angle that the individual writer takes.**

For example take Alfred Edresheims way of categorizing the gospels (which I like):

Matthew (Jewish view of the Christ) - has for its main object the Discourses or teaching of the Lord, around which the History groups itself. It is intended as a demonstration, primarily addressed to the Jews, and in a form peculiarly suited to them, that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of the Living God.

Mark (general view of the Christ) - is a rapid survey of the History of the Christ as such. It deals mainly with the Galilean Ministry.

Luke (Gentile view of the Christ) - complements the narratives in the other two Gospels (St. Matthew and St. Mark), and it supplements them by tracing, what is not done otherwise: the Ministry in Peroea. Thus, it also forms a transition to the Fourth Gospel of the Judæan Ministry.

John (the Church’s view of Christ) - which gives the highest, the reflective, view of the Eternal Son as the Word, deals almost exclusively with the Jerusalem Ministry.

With this category of Mathew we could say why did Mathew think the many dead raising to life and the thunder was important along side of the curtain tearing? We must keep in mind the gospels only select certain highlights of the miracles the Lord did and we can assume those that are recorded are only a drop in the bucket, juts as the words he spoke were much, much more than what was recorded. The words in the gospels are just little snippet summaries.

One possible answer is that Mathew, as writing to a Jewish audience, really wanted to stress the end of the Jewish Law and power in Christ’s death to end it. Besides the Jews expected Messiah to bring about a resurrection of the dead soon after his arrival to this earth (see here). The other three may have not have included it in their limited selection of material, perhaps because they felt the focus should really be on the greater event of Christ’s death. So this is a great miracle and thankfully Mathew recorded it, but we must not let any miracles cloud the greatest event which was Christ’s death.

thank you very much for the info about the angels of each writer.
–
Greg McNultyAug 23 '12 at 17:04

2

I only read the first sentence, and already must downvote, for There is no doubt this truly happened. There clearly IS a doubt--just look at the accepted answer. You may have legitimate reasons to disregard those doubts, but that doesn't mean the doubts don't exist. An honest answer doesn't ignore the opposing view--it rather explains why the opposing view is wrong.
–
FlimzyNov 7 '13 at 23:45

Since the other three gospels are silent on this topic and it is not mentioned elsewhere in the NT (that I am aware of and I did some research before posting), I think the honest answer to this question is simply: nowhere. At least, not in this life. :)

The MacArthur Study Bible says:

Matthew alone mentions this miracle. Nothing more is said about these people...

and the ESV Study Bible says, among other things:

No other historical information about this event has been found...

Both sources do comment further, but IMO its reasoned conjecture and not really that helpful in the end.

Stuff like this confuses the crap out of me. Matthew throws something out like this and it waters down some of the things I did believe without question before. Does that make sense? Is there a name for this experience?
–
Greg McNultyAug 22 '12 at 20:30

It's like his credibility goes down or something. I mean how could no one else write about this?
–
Greg McNultyAug 22 '12 at 20:39

Finally an answer with an actual answer to the question: nowhere
–
FlimzyNov 7 '13 at 23:50

In the Book of Mormon (which you might accept as Holy Scripture or not, at least i do), the same event is prophesied by Samuel the Lamanite in the following words:

Helaman 14:25 And many graves shall be opened, and shall yield up many of their
dead; and many saints shall appear unto many.

Later, when Christ appears after his resurrection, he says:

3 Nephi 23:9 Verily I say unto you, I commanded my servant Samuel, the Lamanite, that he should testify unto this people, that at the day
that the Father should glorify his name in me that there were many
saints who should arise from the dead, and should appear unto many,
and should minister unto them. And he said unto them: Was it not so?

10 And his disciples answered him and said: Yea, Lord, Samuel did
prophesy according to thy words, and they were all fulfilled.

11 And Jesus said unto them: How be it that ye have not written this
thing, that many saints did arise and appear unto many and did
minister unto them?

12 And it came to pass that Nephi remembered that this thing had not
been written.

13 And it came to pass that Jesus commanded that it should be
written; therefore it was written according as he commanded.

So what i take from this passage is that we need to imagine this as personal experiences as jayyeshu already pointed out. This event was probably more like many people having apparitions/visits of the risen than them actually walking the streets randomly. From what i understand, they did not just "come to life" again, and did not stay with, let's say, their family, for the rest of their life(and then die again as Lazarus). I understand it more as a form of Resurrection, which would explain why

The people are not mentioned afterwards (they didn't stay on earth after they appeared)

the other people didn't freak out about open graves (after all, Christ was able to leave his grave without opening it) - on the other hand, Christ's open grave didn't get much public attention either...

This is mostly my interpretation, but it clears a lot of the confusion around this event, and also explains why there is only one line in the New Testament that even speaks about it - heck, in the sciptures i mentioned we even have people that were perfectly aware of the matter, but still didn't write it down until Jesus commanded them.

Ellen G. White, who many in the Seventh-Day Adventist church consider a modern day prophet (according to Rev. 12:19, and 19:10) had this to say about this event. I believe she wrote this by inspiration of Jehovah our God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in her wonderful book on the Life of Christ called, "The Desire of Ages":

Christ arose from the dead as the first fruits of those that slept. He was the antitype of the wave sheaf, and His resurrection took place on the very day when the wave sheaf was to be presented before the Lord. For more than a thousand years this symbolic ceremony had been performed. From the harvest fields the first heads of ripened grain were gathered, and when the people went up to Jerusalem to the Passover, the sheaf of first fruits was waved as a thank offering before the Lord. Not until this was presented could the sickle be put to the grain, and it be gathered into sheaves. The sheaf dedicated to God represented the harvest. So Christ the first fruits represented the great spiritual harvest to be gathered for the kingdom of God. His resurrection is the type and pledge of the resurrection of all the righteous dead. “For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with Him.” 1 Thessalonians 4:14. {DA 785.4}

As Christ arose, He brought from the grave a multitude of captives. The earthquake at His death had rent open their graves, and when He arose, they came forth with Him. They were those who had been co-laborers with God, and who at the cost of their lives had borne testimony to the truth. Now they were to be witnesses for Him who had raised them from the dead.{DA 786.1}

During His ministry, Jesus had raised the dead to life. He had raised the son of the widow of Nain, and the ruler’s daughter and Lazarus. But these were not clothed with immortality. After they were raised, they were still subject to death. But those who came forth from the grave at Christ’s resurrection were raised to everlasting life. They ascended with Him as trophies of His victory over death and the grave. These, said Christ, are no longer the captives of Satan; I have redeemed them. I have brought them from the grave as the first fruits of My power, to be with Me where I am, nevermore to see death or experience sorrow.{DA 786.2}

These went into the city, and appeared unto many, declaring, Christ has risen from the dead, and we be risen with Him. Thus was immortalized the sacred truth of the resurrection. The risen saints bore witness to the truth of the words, “Thy dead men shall live, together with My dead body shall they arise.” Their resurrection was an illustration of the fulfillment of the prophecy, “Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead.” Isaiah 26:19.{The Desire of Ages, page 786.3}

Why it is not found elsewhere in New Testament and why only one-line mention for this event?

We can only speculate. Nevertheless we can certainly deduce following conclusions by having a closer look at these passages:

If one visualizes this event happening then it is likely that the same was possibly not a public fanfare as it is made out in this question:

“The graves opened”. It would be not right to take these words literally because when someone is raised from the death, this is likely to be an expression in describing that event.

“Many of God’s people who had died were raised from the death”. Note that not all the dead people came out of graves but only God’s people (Holy people) came back to life.

Also note that the next passage is very specifically saying that they went to holy city- meaning Jerusalem. It is not that these dead people came out of the grave and strolled the streets of their respective localities where they lived. We can safely conclude here that they were seen by a very few people, that too by those who were in the know of recognising them.

This event would be a personal experience for each one of these people who saw the risen people and would not be a public phenomenon or an exhibition, where all the dead people would be parading through the holy city with a tag on them so that all people will see.

These “God’s people” could also be from all over the world. So it is unlikely that all the people who saw them in (holy city) Jerusalem would recognise them.

There is another possibility: These few chosen people witnessing the event, could be also holy people who were witnessing their presence in holy city something similar to encounter of Jesus with a few chosen, for we find something like this here:

Acts. 10:40 but God raised him up on the third day and caused him to be seen, 10:41 not by all the people, but by us, the witnesses God had already chosen, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.

What Mathew is recording was possibly his own testimony of this unique event or of those pious witnesses who confided in him during his ministry in the holy city.

Hence it is likely that this event was occurring in isolation with the knowledge of few and failed to rattle everyone in the holy city to become it known to everyone at that time. We would never know God’s mind but one possible reason for restricting the knowledge of this event to few chosen could be that Jesus was not yet resurrected and for that reason the Jews were not be alerted about it till it happened. This event in Mathew could be one of such kind, which was known only to a very few and somehow Mathew was one of the few who knew it.

Regarding second sub-question: The context where this event is narrated is in the midst of narration of yet another great event that was occurring: Dying of Son of God on cross for the humanity. Deviating from the narration of this and detailing on an event of people rising from the dead (when there are already other detailed narrations running into several verses on such similar events elsewhere in Gospels) would have diluted the importance of this main event of dying on the cross.

In general:

Each and every miracle that Jesus performed, including numerous other phenomenons that surrounded Him (His birth, transfiguration etc.) were not ordinary but were all greatest supernatural events. Regardless of this, we find that some of these events are not mentioned in all the Gospels.

It is common to see that some people attack the Bible for having four versions of the same story in the Gospels and other people attack the Bible for not having four exact copies of the same stories in the Gospels. Birth of Jesus is mentioned only in Matthew and Luke. Since it is not mentioned in Mark and John does it means that we should discard the fact that he was ever born?

Likewise, the event of Lazarus rising from the dead is recorded only in John’s Gospel and in no other gospel. This event in Mathew in similar manner is recorded only in Mathew. Both are not ordinary events yet they are not appearing in all the Gospels.

You can find out more on that in 1Co 15.20-23. Click the link to check side-by-side the NASB, DARBY, and SBLGNT versions - it will be clear why I chose these versions.

Paul not only speaks about this group that raised from the dead but even names them "ἀπαρχὴ", often translated "first fruits", in this passage that talks about the order in which the resurrection "parade" is organized - see the title given by the NASB to this passage.

In the original text (which you can have in the 3rd column by clicking on the "1Co 15.20-23" link on the first paragraph), the word "ἀπαρχὴ" appears in the nominative Greek case, just like the next word, "Χριστός" - "Christ", also in the nominative case. This is probably why DARBY translated v.23 as:

But each in his own rank: [the] first-fruits, Christ; then those that
are the Christ's at his coming. (DARBY 1Co 15.23)

(I'm glad he respected the cases and the word order of the original text.)

Note the word order in the original and on Darby's: (i) first-fruits, (ii) Christ, exactly matching the order in which the resurrections from the dead are reported in Matthew: the first-fruits in his death, Christ in the third day.

We as Christians are called to live by faith, not always seeing things, not always understanding everything. I believe that applies not only to the daily experience but to our trust relation with the Word of God.

We don't have to know everything, as it's written:

The hidden things belong to Jehovah our God; but the revealed ones are
ours and our children's for ever, to do all the words of this law.
(DARBY Deu.29:29)

are two things in the Gospel of Matthew that are not recorded anywhere in known history, even though one would expect them to be. That might be a strong argument against Biblical inerrancy, and opens up a can of worms about who wrote the gospels and what else could have been embellished.

One can always say that these events happened and all other independent accounts were lost to us. However the absence of these events from other gospels is significant. As is their resemblance eg to the story of Moses or birth of Zeus.

If then they who walked in ancient customs came to a new hope, no
longer living for the Sabbath, but for the Lord's Day, on which also
our life sprang up through him and his death,-though some deny
him,-and by this mystery we received faith, and for this reason also
we suffer, that we may be found disciples of Jesus Christ our only
teacher; 2. if these things be so, how then shall we be able to live
without him of whom even the prophets were disciples in the Spirit and
to whom they looked forward as their teacher ? And for this reason he
whom they waited for in righteousness, when he came raised them from
the dead

The Shepherd of Hermas

"Because," saith he, "these, the apostles and the teachers who
preached the name of the Son of God, after they had fallen asleep in
the power and faith of the Son of God, preached also to them that had
fallen asleep before them, and themselves gave unto them the seal of
the preaching. Therefore they went down with them into the water, and
came up again. But these went down alive [and again came up alive];
whereas the others that had fallen asleep before them went down dead
and came up alive.

In the two volume set of the Apostolic Fathers by the Loeb Classical Library there is a footnote on page 263 of volume 2:

"The idea that hearing the Gospel and Baptism is necessary for the salvation of the
righteous dead of the pre-Christian times is common"